John Atkinson of Chiasm just sent me a provocative e-mail, which ties into my coverage of China's nuclear power boom, as well as my recent piece on the potential for a dark Chinese political future:
"RE: China Power
The Woodrow Wilson center published a great paper on this topic a couple years ago, and I included some lengthy excerpts and relevant links on my blog last month [JK: It's a really good post!]. There's a lot of demand for advanced alternative energy technologies in China right now because of their worries about energy security, insane pollution problems, and their need to electrify remote areas; and there's a lot of US alternative energy/fuels companies that are struggling to gain a foothold in the US market against heavily-established fossil energy/fuels that could benefit enormously from a more focused US/China technology transfer program.
This kind of policy, if pursued vigorously, is win-win-win for both the US and China - it could reduce competition for oil, improve energy security for both companies, improve China's environment, allow US alt-energy/fuels companies to achieve economies of scale and reduce prices for US and China, and hopefully offset tensions in 'other areas' of the US/China relationship."
It's a provocative idea, though China's record of having "technology transfer" = stealing is unencouraging. Still, I have a feeling John is on to something here. Your thoughts are always welcome in our Comments section, or on your blog (just let me know so I can be sure we have a link to your contribution).
I say steal away -- it's to everyone's benefit that they solve their energy and environmental problems. Good stuff.
The September issue of Wired Magazine had an article about Chinese research in "pebble bed" nuclear reactors.
The basic idea is that these reactors are "walk away" safe - in other words, shut down the cooling system and walk away, and the reactor will not melt down.
According to this link the article should be online by Wednesday.
I found it interesting, but I don't find Wired an authoritative source for things technical - the articles on topics which I know something about leave me suspicious about the articles on other topics.
But if the pebble bed reactor idea works out on a commercial scale, it could be a technology we'd maybe want to see transfered here - but only if we get the waste storage issue worked out.
The country which flooded a million people out of their homes (Three Gorges Dam) will not have to wrestle too hard with the NIMBY politics of waste repository location.
lewy,
I concur with your estimate of technical articles presented in Wired Magazine. I feel they sometimes try too hard to spice up the future of certain technologies in order to drum up interest.
I do hope that pebble bed reactors are feasible; I also hope that the Chinese push ahead on renewable energy technologies- they will be facing critical shortages in the near term so they sorta have no choice.
I've just written a blog about China's increased use of solar power, including solar power in the home, if anybody is interested, it's nothing deep, just a summary of ideas etc but if your interested in renewable energy in China you might be interested in reading it.
On the other hand, they live close enough to the edge that they don't really have the option of pretending that you can run industry off of fat from deep friers, or what have you. Nor can they afford to take many risks, as one major gamble that goes sour could drag their whole economy down.
Fossil fuels and nuclear have a track record of working. "Renewable" energy? Outside of hydro, don't expect them to look at it with rose colored glasses.
Wind power is actually pretty damn good. It has a very high energy profit ratio, almost as good as oil. It's proven technology, and its relatively cheap.
thanks for the link, Joe! I do actually link to posts here on various topics relatively often, I just can't get my goddamned trackbacks working. anyway, you may have seen this on worldchanging a couple weeks ago, but this scidev article notes a similar relationship developing between China and less-developed developing countries, in Africa especially. it's a neat twist, and it's encouraging to see China assuming a constructive leadership role in the developing world. while solar can't match fossil or nuclear (or even hydro or wind) generation for high demand, grid-based distribution, it can actually be relatively cost-effective for remote, off-the-grid areas, making it a potentially good match for rural China as well as the targeted export markets. sweet!
Wired article on pebble bed nuclear reactors now online here.
Wind power is a proven technology, with a high energy gain, but it does have one teensy little problem: The wind blows when the wind wants to, not when you throw the light switch. Not a good characteristic in an energy source. Mind you, there are places where the wind is reliable enough for it to be worthwhile. But it's never going to be one of the big hitters.
It's a provocative idea, though China's record of having "technology transfer" = stealing is unencouraging.
If you look at American industrial development in the 19th century you'll discover very quickly that stolen technology was a mainstay of many American industries - this was especially true in areas like textiles.
lewy14,
Nuclear reactors are simply not cheap enough to compete with coal and natural gas fired plants; unless there is significant government intervention involved at least. From a capital cost perspective nuclear plants are simply not going to be the first choice of investors in a free market. A recent MIT study goes into some detail about this, stating that things like carbon taxes, government mandate portfolio standards, etc. will be required if nuclear is to be a "competitive" industry. From a libertarian perspective nuclear power is an invitation for government to step in and start screwing with the energy markets in ways that have proven to be disasterous over the years.
BTW, the idea of a pebble-bed reactor has been around for years now.
Brett,
Wind power is not bad for base load. Well sited wind turbines can be counted on for about 33% of the nameplate rating as an energy generator.
It can be counted on for 20% of nameplate rating for base load generation. Assuming the turbines cover a wide area.
The poster who cited the energy gain factor was correct. It is about 10:1. Which is the gain factor of currently viable energy technologies.